State v. King, 2014 Ohio 4189

Stefan D. King was indicted for aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and having weapons while under disability; initial jury convicted him of the weapons count but deadlocked on the robbery/specification.
On retrial day King entered an Alford plea to aggravated robbery with an amended firearm specification while maintaining his innocence.
The trial court (same judge who presided over the first trial) accepted the Alford plea after indicating it had heard the State’s evidence at the first trial and believed the record contained strong evidence of guilt.
The court sentenced King to consecutive terms: 2 years for having weapons while under disability, a mandatory 1 year for the firearm specification, and 3 years for aggravated robbery (total six years). The State and King jointly recommended a six-year sentence.
King appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in accepting the Alford plea without requiring the State to present additional evidence and (2) the court imposed consecutive sentences without making the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (King)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in accepting King’s Alford plea without requiring the State to present additional evidence	The court may accept an Alford plea when the record contains strong evidence of guilt; the judge who heard the first trial was in a good position to assess the record	The court committed plain error by relying on evidence from the first trial and should have inquired whether the State had additional or different evidence before accepting the plea	Overruled: No error. The court properly accepted the Alford plea based on the trial judge’s firsthand knowledge of the State’s evidence and the record’s strong evidence of guilt
Whether the trial court imposed consecutive sentences without making the statutory findings at sentencing under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Consecutive terms were appropriate and the sentencing entry included the required findings	The judge failed to make the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record at the sentencing hearing, violating Bonnell	Sustained: Reversed in part and remanded for resentencing because the required consecutive-sentence findings were not made orally at sentencing (they appeared only in the journal entry)

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (permits guilty plea while maintaining innocence where plea is voluntary and record contains strong evidence of guilt)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard and importance of proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain error standard in Ohio criminal cases)
State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380 (1987) (discusses requirement of strong evidence for acceptance of Alford plea)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain error applied with caution)